How to sue the WT over shunning policy. It CAN happen!

by Bad_Wolf 224 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Brokeback Watchtower

  Human rights violations might be a avenue that needs to be explored? Positive negativity will stop thinking, and give up the search.

  I'm no legal eagle so I don't know all the laws that apply in my own country, so I can't intelligently comment so I will rely on JC323 critique for any flaws in my comments. I'm sure there is a way, the thing is can somebody find it. This just might be a job for AI.

  How about freedom of speech, freedom to contradict or believed differently than the Corporation's ever changing self serving publish currant teachings? That would make for a nice public trial or something.
• 

  JC323

  Church of Scientology lawsuit. California supreme court.

  https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1760305.html
  
• 

  JC323

  A suit on freedom of speech, is not a legitimate lawsuit. You can only sue the goverment for a violation such as that. The bill of rights only prevents the goverment from infringing on rights.

  After the florida school shooting major stores chose to change their stance on selling certain types of guns to certain people. This was done even though no change in the law. One cannot sue the store because they arent being sold a gun, it is up to the store to enforce their policy.
• 

  JC323

  Also a civil court requires a suit to include something that would provide relief to the person who is suing. This relief must be reasonable and force able to have an effect. If there isnt then it must be dismissed for failing to state a claim.

  The courts have also ruled in the past that a civil judgement would be similar to a goverment in acting a law. Thst if the civil suit would prevent the free excercise of religion then the civil court cannot intervene.
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  JC323, I have read the link you provided concerning the Church of Scientology lawsuit and I am pleased to find that it actually confirms my previous comments:

  Whether or not the “disconnect” policy is constitutionally protected when practiced in a voluntary context it is not so protected if practiced in the coercive environment appellant imposed on Wollersheim.   The reasons are the same as apply to “auditing.”  (See pp. 6–7, supra.)   Substantial evidence supports the finding Scientology created this coercive environment and Wollersheim continued to submit to the practices of the church such as “disconnect” because of that coercion.  

  The problem is not the teaching of Shunning, it is coercing the members in practising it! JWs do just that by shunning people who do not respect the shunning practice. The problem is that no one presented the evidence to any court so far.
  
  
• 

  JC323

  You have to read the full decision. It speaks as to what constitutes a coercive environment.
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  I know the environment created in this particular case was a horror story. However, I still believe that the action of threatening and shunning someone who does not believe in shunning is not protected by the Freedom of belief. As the judgement said:

  Freedom of belief is absolutely guaranteed;  freedom of action is not.

  JWs have the right to teach and to shun. However, their right to threaten and outcast members who do not shun has never been presented to the courts.
• 

  JC323

  The court actually differentiated of what scientology does and the actions of JWs. It highlights that the Paul decision is accurate. It further highlights that a requirement to discontinue from communicating with people is valid. It even highlights that churches teach that if you dont follow our instructions you will be dammed for all eternity. The court said that could be construed as coercive but there is a reasonable amount that every church experiences.
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  The problem with the other court cases, including Paul vs Watchtower, were that they were questioning the right to teach Shunning.

  In short, the churches present their case as follow: Our members take the personal decision, based on their religious belief and bible teachings, that they should avoid ex members. This is our teaching, this is what we believe.

  However, churches do not stop there. They take actions against people who do not take the personal decision to uphold that teaching, this amounts to coercion.
• 

  JC323

  Actually if you read the Paul case fully. The reason why Paul disassociated herself was because her parents were disfellowshipped, she disagreed with the decision and was warned not to speak about her disagreement, she then disassociated herself. Same as in the scientology case, the man disassociated himself from his church.

  The church in the paul case heard how people avoided to talk to her or was asked to leave a tuperwear party because of her status. That is what caused the suit. Pretty much met everyone of your conditions.